ThenNow

The signature block has 3 options that can be checked above the signature to identify the party executing the POC. They are: (1) SA Survivor; (2) Survivor's...executor or Authorized Representative; (3) Other. I added my wife's name, residence and email address to my file in the form of a very simple amendment, since she is my designated executor under the trusty ol' will. I just enjoy adding digital sheets of paper to my ShareVault drawer.

I reckon that's misplaced hope, my friend. The TCC filed papers more or less in support while noting their annoyance that the Coalition made it sound like they did it all and won the day. Clearly that was not the case.

I have no expertise, but the sections of the code I read (back when) indicate the request for reimbursement of expenses when the party claims and makes the case for a "substantial contribution to the settlement" are sought from the debtor's estate. That makes sense to me because that's the kitty from which the TCC and other professionals have been and are paid. The next part is not so easy for my wee brain to grasp. These requests are for fees paid to secondary firms that represented their clients (Coalition, Pfau...) in the effort to "make a deal" with the other constituents (BSA, insure

Ahem. We are here, kind sir. Silence is not absence, avoidance or disinterest. (NAM and membership numbers and charging into the fall of 2023 just aren’t conversations we care to engage.)

So I’m clear, are them der wheels sporting rubber or marshmallow treads?

Not sure how many of you logged on for the gathering, but it was informative and anything but celebratory. Just as I anticipated. TCC counsel advised the effective date is 6-18 month out, reasonably. I go with the outside, given the timelines so far. If more dawdling, wrangling, lack of settlements with the holdout insurers and etc., it could be more worser. Wee...

Two relevant news articles I've stumbled across. Ms. Kelly has covered the case since inception. (Not the film. That was 12 years ago. Hm. On second thought, that's a worthy note from where I sit.) https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/boy-scouts-path-exit-bankruptcy-following-sex-abuse-settlement-approval-2022-09-08/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2022/09/08/boy-scouts-plan-exit-bankruptcy-historic-sex-abuse-case-ends/8023263001/

As I read the Code, the stays remain until the effective date. The plan cannot be implemented yet, so it makes sense to me. Confirmation is the beginning of the end for the debtor. Okay. I threw my dart and let's see where it landed. NB: I am not a bankruptcy attorney and do not play one on TV.

If he is willing, Eagle1993 would remind us of the timeframes for other cases, perhaps most relevant being Purdue.

Can we change that to binder twine? More Scouting flavor that way.

That departs from Platform 9 3/4, am I correct?

I second the motion for a new thread. Might we have a naming contest? Pretty please?

Nothing is “done.” The bankruptcy Judge signed the confirmation order. It’s a first down, not a touchdown. More courts, appeals, and for survivors (assuming all that goes well) years of fun with Judge Houser. Miles to go. If it’s determined the 2nd and 3rd Circuits are at loggerheads on non-consensual third-party releases, we may be sitting with the Supremes. I can’t count chickens. I’m still hunting eggs in the tall grass.

Okay. I happened to be looking at the NESA site because I'm trying to get replacement pins, medal and credentials for a new friend whose ex burned all his memorabilia. Anywho, I noticed an article from those attending NOAC. I clicked, scanned and my eye was drawn to this line. I'm sorry, but it made me laugh. "NESA’s newest class for those continuing their educational adventure entitled, “Free Money: A Boy Scouts of America Guide..."

That was the Guam Committee's attorney and he said it with something bordering on glee, like boys joking in the locker room. I honestly thought the Judge would bodycheck him. I almost went live to chastise all of them for letting it pass without comment. A very tasteless and reprehensible attempt at an inside joke. PS - For those who were on the hearing, is anyone able to confirm that for me? I'm 99% sure and you know where that puts me. Tanks, as opposed to Tanc's.